I feel so strongly that Mitt Romney is the right choice for president that I wanted to make one last post, my closing argument as it were, in hopes of convincing that one last undecided voter out there somewhere to vote for Mitt. I wanted to explain why I, and the other authors here at Mitt Romney Central, have devoted such time, effort, emotion, and yes, money, to the cause of electing Mitt. My list of specific reasons why I like Mitt, and my counterarguments to President Obama’s case, are below. But I can sum up why I feel so strongly with this: Barack Obama’s vision for America is inconsistent with that of our founding fathers and our Constitution.

A Limited Government Preserves Freedom

Our government was founded on the principles of self-determination and freedom. Americans were not content to be told by the British government how much they should pay in taxes or what freedoms they were entitled to. So they fought a war to gain their independence. When the founding fathers then set up their own government, at the forefront of their minds was the concern for how to preserve their hard-won freedoms. So they came up with three fundamental ideas about the new federal government: (i) it should be small, split into different branches with checks and balances over each other’s power, (ii) it should share power with, and in fact have less power over citizens’ day-to-day lives than, the states, where the citizens were better represented, and (iii) our most basic freedoms should be enshrined in a Bill of Rights to make absolutely sure the federal government did not violate them. This combination of ideas, they thought, would assure, over time, that the God-given rights they had won back from their government at great cost would be preserved against tyranny.

Obama’s Vision of a Larger Government is Antithetical to Freedom.

In 2008 when Senator Obama talked of “transforming” America and saying “we can do better,” it was clear to me he was talking about fundamentally changing these key principles. He stood for a larger federal government; one that would try and take responsibility for the poor and do more for its citizens. While that may sound nice, having a government undertake that responsibility also means it must become larger, tax more (a government that undertakes to define what’s fair for all its citizens will also try and make everyone pay their “fair share”) and become more involved in our lives, much more involved than the founding fathers intended. A larger government necessarily becomes more difficult to manage, begins to take on a life of its own, and becomes very difficult to control. A larger federal government also means a shift in power from the states, where citizens can more easily control their own destiny. And once people begin to rely on government largesse, cutting the size of that government and its programs, even if the government cannot afford them (witness our overwhelming deficits and the troubles in Europe as it tries to cut back), becomes very, very difficult. People become less willing to give up that security, even if it means a loss of liberty. And they can become accustomed to the idea that the government represents someone else, not them, and that they are owed something by that government (witness appeals from the left that sound like class warfare). As a result, I believe the policies of President Obama reflect a threat to our liberty. Perhaps not immediate. Perhaps only a little. But what he wants to do, at its core, is inconsistent with the intended size and role of our government, which means we will inevitably lose a little, or a lot, of liberty. How much really depends on how much further down Obama’s road we go. And in my view, we’ve already lost too much.

Example: Obamacare.

As an illustration of what I mean, I’ll use Obamacare. It sounds nice to make sure everyone has health insurance. And there are lots of stories of people who can’t afford insurance, and how having it would benefit them greatly. I get that, and I feel for their situation. This is what Obama meant by “we can do better.” He’d like to use government resources to fix these problems. But, just like when you get your first credit card, you need to look beyond the nice things you can buy and decide whether you can really afford it, because that bill will come due at some time. As for the cost in dollars and cents, it’s clear we can’t afford Obamacare. We just can’t. It adds trillions of unfunded government outlays over the next two decades. And once these benefits are offered to citizens it’s very difficult to take them away. In addition, Obamacare has already begun to infringe on our freedoms. At its core it’s the federal government (not the state, which is the principal difference between Obamacare and Romneycare), forcing us to buy a product. Then, because it forces us to buy this product, it must go further and legislate the minimum requirements of this product (or everyone would buy the cheapest version available). That legislation now includes elements some religions find offensive. How’d we get here? By involving the federal government in something it really was never intended by the founding fathers to be involved in: providing health insurance. Further, because the IRS will be in charge of enforcing compliance with the mandate, it will need to know our personal health information. The founders’ vision of limited federal power, with express limits on what the federal government can and can’t do, has been violated by Obamacare. And having the federal government in this position simply poses a threat to our freedom. The founders knew power corrupts, and while we think we can trust the government now, we don’t always know we will be able to. When will it be your religious belief that’s infringed? Or your freedom of speech? This is why the Republicans resist President Obama so much. This is why Obamacare did not get one single Republican vote. This is why Obama’s own budget was rejected by not only Republicans but his own party. And finally this is why Mitch McConnell said it was his goal to make sure Obama only had one term: to try and make sure the damage President Obama does is not long-lasting. Obamacare is a threat to our freedom, and it’s just one example.

This Ain’t Just Rhetoric.

Let me say that this is not just rhetoric. I’m not just making an argument because I want you to vote for Mitt for some other hidden reason. This is why I’m voting for Mitt, and why I honestly believe everyone should. This is what worries me about the prospect of Obama serving another term. He has already made some strides toward “transforming” America into something I believe it was never intended to be. Obamacare was one very large step in that direction. As Vice President Biden said, it was a “[blanking] big deal.” I know the further we go down this road the more difficult it is to go back. I also know the GOP will fight Obama to preserve that liberty, which is likely to result in more gridlock at a time when our government needs to work together. Unfortunately, though, cooperating with the president can mean, and has meant, the loss of some of these liberties, which makes compromise difficult.(more…)

A front view of the four story, marble-clad United States Supreme Court Building in Washington, D.C.
Click on photo to enlarge. (Photo – Mark Fischer)

To: Those intent on voting for Gary Johnson, Ron Paul supporters, and other ‘write-in’ voters…

Take a moment to read the following IMPORTANT article from Matthew D. Carling, Esq. He lays out the case for thoughtfully considering the repercussions of your voting choices. For years to come, America’s course will be determined through coming Supreme Court appointees.

Carling’s background:

Matthew D. Carling is an attorney specializing in appellate law in the states of Utah and Nevada. He has previously been a prosecutor for the District Attorney’s Office of Lincoln County, Nevada, has served as a defense attorney, and also as Judge Pro Tempore for the North Las Vegas Municipal Courts. He received both his Juris Doctor and Master’s of Business Administration from Creighton University in Omaha, Nebraska.

Every four years, American voters eagerly line up to choose their favorite candidate for President. We brim with hope for a leader who sees the world like we do—someone a lot like us. But once our ideal contender is eliminated from the field, disappointment often turns to disgust. Voters by the thousands remove themselves from the political battlefield and refuse to participate further. It’s either my nominee or nothing.

Consoled in the belief that one vote won’t matter, the disenfranchised gently beguile themselves into apathy. Surely four more years of any single administration cannot possibly unravel the rich heritage of our nation. Others withdraw out of a need to take a moral stand, indignant over the flaws they would otherwise feel they are endorsing with their vote. Some even choose strategic revenge, hoping to punish less-pure conservatives with four more years under a stanch liberal president — a small price to pay if the lesson finally awakens such “useful idiots” from their folly. After all, how much damage can one president leave that can’t be undone by his successor?

These might be valid points except for one detail. A president’s most lasting legacy is not usually the bills he signs into law, his executive orders or even the wars over which he presides. It is his unique role in shaping the entire third branch of government, the Supreme Court, which has power to overrule the others. Indeed, his nominations to the bench can alter our society for generations.

Consider George W. Bush. With the retirement of Justice O’Connor and the passing of Chief Justice Rehnquist, President Bush reshaped the Court with his nominations of John Roberts and Samuel Alito, both thoughtful and mostly conservative jurists. Whatever Bush’s faults, these two acts could benefit our nation immensely for generations to come. President Obama, on the other hand, countered by replacing two activist jurists (Souter & Stevens) with two more: Elena Kagen and Sonia Sotomayor, each fully in step with the current Administration’s societal and political agenda. These appointments have not disappointed the progressive left.

How much does this matter? For most people it depends on the issue. Until recently, for millions of Americans in major cities across the nation, owning a handgun was severely restricted if not banned entirely. For decades, Second Amendment advocates had wistfully dreamed of the Supreme Court striking such laws, but were afraid to bring forth a case. What if they lost? Might the Court instead end up nullifying the Second Amendment? On June 28, 2010, with Bush’s appointees the Court finally acknowledged the original intent: that no government, whether federal, state or local, may deny a citizen the right to keep and bear arms.[i] The victory, however, was a narrow one—only 5 to 4. If one more left leaning justice had been appointed, it would have gone the other way. Dissenting, Justice Stevens argued that owning a personal firearm was not a “liberty” interest protected by the Constitution. Likewise, Justice Stephen Breyer stated, “the Framers did not write the Second Amendment in order to protect a private right of armed self-defense.” With a single vote, this suppressive notion would have been the majority opinion.

In just the last decade, this same narrow margin has preserved school choice laws at the state level, but unfortunately tipped the other way and failed to roll back eminent domain abuse. The constitution’s safety in the court is fragile indeed.

On Halloween night six days before we choose our next president, I must confess that I realized inside me there resides a real fear of what would happen if Obama won next Tuesday. In the spirit of Halloween I decided to give in to that fear, like going to a horror movie, and allow myself to be really, really frightened by the specter of an Obama re-election. So here’s my Halloween Nightmare: Obama II, the sequel.

Like in a horror movie, things may look fine on the surface, but then the ominous music starts playing and you know something’s just not right. This close to the election I feel like I’m watching the American public in the role of that poor teenager, innocently wandering in the dark alley by himself, not knowing the danger right around the corner. The entire audience knows it’s there, and it seems anyone with half a brain would know as well. Yet the teenager doesn’t see it. And so the drama builds…will the hapless teenager keep moving toward danger, or will he turn at the last moment? The suspense is killing me.

But unlike those horror movies, where the fear is contrived and you can calmly go home afterward, my fear is real. The threats to our economy and freedoms are real, and there may be no going home afterward. Obama II may be a nightmare we don’t wake up from. Why am I so worried? What is this ominous music I’m hearing? Tonight I give in to the fear and try and give it a voice. Tonight I try and give a name to what lurks in the dark corners of my mind:

Maybe I’m worried that the next four years will be like the last four. I sat and watched from my position as an attorney for startup companies and venture capitalists as the economy slowed, investment ran dry, and people just didn’t get jobs back, even after reports of an improving economy.

Maybe it’s the fact so many people gave up looking for work. They don’t count in that 7.8% unemployment number anymore but they’re still unemployed.

Maybe it’s the passage of Obamacare, with its thousands of pages, new taxes and failure to reduce costs. When it seemed our economy needed an energy boost, the president was sucking more blood from it.

Maybe it’s the statements I hear from founders of large and small companies that if Obama is re-elected they’ll move those companies, either out of my state or out of the country.

Maybe it’s my dismay at Obamacare’s constitutionally-questionable mandate that some employers do things against their conscience and pay for their employees’ contraception.

Maybe it’s the use of constitutionally-questionable executive orders to do an end-run around Congress on immigration law.

Maybe it’s President Obama’s convenient conversion on same sex marriage.

Maybe it’s my worry about the fiscal cliff, and that President Obama has shown no ability to work with Congress in the bipartisan manner we’ll need to avoid the real horror movie of that un-natural disaster.

Maybe I’m horrified by all those rounds of golf President Obama played. Not that I object to a guy taking a break, but when I saw what happened in the first debate, I saw a pattern. President Obama only shows up when it really suits him, like when his job’s on the line. Maybe I’m worried nothing will motivate him if he’s re-elected and has no accountability. And maybe I’m not only worried about what President Obama won’t do, but what he will do without accountability to the voters.

Maybe I’m worried with no attention being paid, and no real admission of culpability, there’ll be a Benghazi II. How do you avoid repeating a problem you don’t take responsibility for?

Maybe I’m worried about what Supreme Court justices a 2d term President Obama would appoint. Would they interpret the constitution as it was intended, or would they fall in line with the other liberal justices on the court to act like a new legislature rather than limiting Federal power.

I realize I’m letting things get away from me. Mitt’s still neck and neck with President Obama, and maybe we won’t be forced to live through Obama II. There’s a good chance, given the polling data, Mitt even wins in a landslide. But tonight, on Halloween, I’m letting myself be terrified. I’m just sick that this nightmare has any chance of really coming true.

READ ON, BUT BE SURE TO POST BELOW YOUR TOP 3 REASONS WHY WE NEED TO ELECT MITT (Facebook comment if you can to get this to spread virally)! Duplicate reasons okay!

SPREAD THE WORD: Mitt will be holding a fundraiser next Saturday, September 22 in Del Mar, California and he needs you there! Details at the end of this post. If you live in or around San Diego (Orange County to the border), given campaign scheduling this may be your last chance to see the man in person. Come and hear him speak at least once this cycle. There’s a required contribution since this is a fundraiser after all, but it’s always a great experience as the soundbites never do him justice. Those who enter wavering leave firmly comMitted! The following photo is from the last event in San Diego, back in July where both Mitt and Ann were able to come.

If you can’t come, contact friends and relatives in Southern California and get them to come! Make sure to re-tweet this article and post it to your Facebook page so the word gets out! While Governor Romney currently has a money advantage in funds on hand, President Obama has already spent a lot of money on his ground game that the governor needs to catch up with, and time is short–we have less than 60 days to the election!!! You may also have seen that President Obama raised slightly more money last month than Governor Romney (by about 2%, not much, but the wrong result). This is a moment when you can have a big impact in this election: come and hear Mitt yourself.

If you’d like to come, please send an email to me at mittindelmar@gmail.com. If you can’t come but would like to donate, go to the official website at www.mittromney.com.

Who knows who else may be there? At July’s event I had the chance to introduce my son Nicolas to Darrel Issa, Congressman of the 49th District in California, who also happens to be Chair of the Oversight Committee currently investigating the Obama administration’s involvement in the “Fast and Furious” debacle.

Whether you can come or not, post your “Top 3 Reasons to Elect Governor Romney” as a Facebook comment to this post and let’s see how viral we can get this! Duplicate reasons are perfectly okay!

Details:

Private meetings begin at 12:30. VIP Reception at 1:00 and luncheon at 1:30.

Email me at mittindelmar@gmail.com to find out how to sign up.

Dress is business casual. The event locale is in inland Del Mar, about 5 minutes East of the 5 freeway. If you plan on coming I will put you in touch with the campaign fundraiser to get you the exact address and to provide you the required disclosures. For example, the fundraiser is for “Romney Victory,” a joint effort of Romney For President, Inc., the Republican National Committee, the Republican Senatorial Committee, the National Republican Senatorial Committee, the National Republican Congressional Committee and the committees of certain states; contributions are not tax deductible. More disclosures to come if you want to investigate attending.

MY TOP THREE REASONS WE’D BETTER ELECT MITT (maybe not in order):

1. Repeal Obamacare. Our government was never intended by the founders to be that big.

2. Have someone with Mitt’s character appointing the next three justices to the Supreme Court.

3. It’s the economy!

BONUS:

4. He was successful in working across the aisle in Massachusetts, something we’ll need to do and that President Obama has failed at miserably during his tenure.

And I haven’t even mentioned foreign policy, the deficit, the fiscal cliff, or replacing Joe Biden with Paul Ryan as VP! There’s lots more great reasons! Please add yours and let’s get this list LONG! As I said above, duplicates are perfectly fine. Let’s see why people love Mitt!!!

PLEASE “LIKE” AND “RECOMMEND” on Facebook and re-tweet to get this message out as far as possible!

At the New Hampshire GOP primaries this year I saw a sign that said “It takes a Carter to get a Reagan.”

I was reminded of the Carter / Obama comparison Sunday when I heard a replay of Michele Bachmann’s speech to conservative college students at the 2012 Eagle Forum. She described working on the Carter campaign when she was in college. Yes, Michele Bachmann was a Carter Democrat (she liked his family values). But soon after his election she realized how badly his policies were affecting America and had a personal “renaissance,” became a Reagan Republican and obviously has not looked back. The entire five minute clip below is worth watching. Ms. Bachmann discusses the forecast $17 trillion in unfunded commitments under Obamacare, how shocked she was when she heard the Obamacare Supreme Court decision and the need to begin working immediately to help elect Mitt Romney and win the “triple crown” of the presidency, the House and the Senate.

I’m struck by the similarity to our current situation. So was our own David Parker in his own article here on Mitt Romney Central a couple weeks ago.

But Ms. Bachmann also reminds us in the video that an economy can turn around very quickly under the right leadership. In 1980 it was Ronald Reagan. In 2012, it’s Mitt Romney.

Many college Democrats who worked for President Obama in the last election may find it hard to return to the message of “hope and change” as they are faced with the realities of President Obama’s policies. (more…)

First: Mr. Obama and surrogates vehemently argued for months that the bill (and then law) was not a tax and that those earning below $250,000 would not see taxes go up.

Second: Mr. Obama’s lawyers argue to the Supreme Court that the ObamaCare mandate is supported as a “tax.” They come right out and call it a “tax.”

Third: The Supreme Court this week agrees with Mr. Obama’s lawyers that ObamaCare’s mandate is supported as a tax.

Fourth: Mr. Obama’s surrogates are now stating ObamaCare’s mandate is really not a tax; that it is really a “penalty” or a “fee.” What is their next phase?

The Wall Street Journal published a short piece yesterday titled, “The Tax Duck”:

Editor’s note: The duck test—if it looks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, it probably is a duck.
[...]
Herewith, from President Obama on down, is a sampling of Democratic denials that the individual mandate is a tax:

President Barack Obama, talking to George Stephanopoulos on ABC News, September 2009:

Stephanopoulos: Your critics say it [the mandate] is a tax increase.

Obama: My critics say everything is a tax increase. My critics say I’m taking over every sector of the economy. You know that. Look, we can have a legitimate debate about whether or not we’re going to have an individual mandate or not, but—

Stephanopoulos; But you reject that it’s a tax increase?

Obama: I absolutely reject that notion.

***
From the White House website, December 2009, under the headline, “The Truth on Health Care Reform and Taxes”:

As we move into the final stage of the historic push for health reform, opponents of reform are testing the age old adage that if you only say something enough times you can somehow make it true. Yesterday, we heard a new version of the old, tired refrain that the health reform bills in Congress would raise taxes on the middle class. So let’s set the record straight: First, the health insurance reform bill being considered in the Senate does not raise taxes on families making less than $250,000.

***
Then-House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer of Maryland, July 2010: “I don’t see this as a tax.”

***
Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius appearing before the House Ways and Means Committee, February 2012: “It [the mandate] operates the same way a tax would operate, but it’s not per se a tax.”

***
Office of Management and Budget Director Jeffrey Zients appearing before House Budget Committee, February 2012:

Rep. Scott Garrett (R., N.J.): If I make under $250,000 and I do not buy health insurance as I’m required to under the Affordable Care Act, is that a tax on me or is that not a tax on me? A moment ago you said there are no tax increases.

Zients: There aren’t.

Garrett: So that’s not a tax?

Zients: No.

***
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi commenting Thursday on the Roberts decision: “Call it what you will.”

Watch this short video of Axelrod doing the dance with Matt Lauer yesterday. Is Axelrod sly or what? I find it absolutely fascinating how Democrats are throwing the potato around to one another as they dance around truth!

Matt Lauer, NBC “TODAY” show host: “The good news [for you] is the Supreme Court said that the mandate is constitutional. The bad news is they said they are a tax. Back in 2009, the President adamantly denied that health care reform was going to be a tax on the American people. Does he now agree that this legislation, this law is a tax?”

David Axelrod, Obama campaign: “Whatever you call it, Matt, whether you call it a mandate or a tax, what it is, is a penalty on the very few Americans who don’t — who can afford health care, don’t pay for it, end up in our emergency rooms getting free care and then we all pay for it in the form of higher premiums.”

In the opening segment of The O’Reilly Factor yesterday, Democrat “strategist” Julie Roginsky continues the dance (moon walk) as she completely dodges Laura Ingraham’s very simple, straightforward inquiries. As with Mr. Obama, Roginsky blames others including Governor Romney as she so artfully pivots, evades, and dodges each question all the while with a smile!

Remember those old westerns where a gunslinger is shooting the ground at the feet of another cowboy as he is dancing all over the place to avoid being hit by the bullets? For the next 128+ days, we will watch Governor Romney firing away at Mr. Obama and his lemmings as they toss the “ObamaTax” (coined by Hannity yesterday) potato from one person to the next.

“Elections should be held on April 16th- the day after we pay our income taxes. That is one of the few things that might discourage politicians from being big spenders.” ~ Thomas Sowell

Today while eating lunch and reading a book involving a US Navy sailor describing his service on the USS Abraham Lincoln, a Nimitz-class supercarrier, the question entered my mind and has been with me all day: Will Barack Obama ever have an aircraft carrier named after him? Or even a smaller US Navy ship? We have the USS Ronald Reagan and the USS George H.W. Bush, both Nimitz-class supercarriers. Then I snapped back to reality. What was I thinking? Of course not! What has the man led or accomplished in his life aside from winning elections on oratory skill?

Justice Ginsberg, 79 / Photo Credit: Saul Loeb

If the month of May was disastrous for President Obama, June could easily eclipse May and probably will. As I have studied the man Barack Obama as President, I have been surprised how he consistently makes one poor choice after another terrible decision. Honestly, if I did not think he was earnest in his desire to be re-elected, I would think he was trying to lose. I even saw an article earlier today that recommended he resign. If you did not read the June 3rd article by Wayne Allyn Root that was widely published and quoted (“Why Obama Will Lose in a Landslide”), it is a must read if only to read his list of Mr. Obama’s poor leadership choices. And since Root’s piece, Mr. Obama made a decision to ask wedding shoppers to forego those gifts to donate to him, he keeps doing fundraisers while ignoring the disastrous Colorado fires, while begging and whining in speech after speech (check out this short video: “I hope you still believe in me”).

Most recently fellow Democrats have been jumping off Mr. Obama’s tattered coat tails telling him and the campaign “no thanks” to their invitations to attend the Democrat convention with him in North Carolina. Early “voting” consists of fundraising success and failure. Though Mr. Obama is ahead in overall fundraising and cash on hand, his campaign team members are terrible cash managers and their burn rate is through the roof. Their gimmicks are even hitting the small contributors and yesterday poor cash projections caused the campaign to cancel a key opening event at the North Carolina convention. If the enormous taxpayer cost to support Mr. Obama’s fundraising (Air Force One, Secret Service logistics, etc.) is not enough abuse, he is now sticking cities like Boston with the tab for security at is events.

Tomorrow might end up being recorded in American history as one of the most critical tests of the power and strength of the American Constitution. So many of Mr. Obama’s actions have been reversed by the federal courts, including the Supreme Court, while we witness senior administration executives ordering laws to be ignored. Weeks of Holder’s hubris combined with the overall Obama administration arrogance is nothing short of stunning and outrageous. Tomorrow we will witness Democrats and Republicans standing together to vote for contempt of Congress for the first time in modern history against a US attorney general while others decide to make a show of racism.

Are we in a different world or what? Had somebody told me six years ago we would be witnessing these events of May and June 2012, I would have laughed them to scorn. There is no way any sane person could have predicted what we have seen and what we are about to see. Early tomorrow morning, we are likely to receive the judgment of the Supreme Court over Mr. Obama’s single largest action. His silence on ObamaCare this year been deafening. Since the cliche “landmark decision” has been used in dozens of articles as of late, I won’t attempt to speculate when reality will be here soon enough. Of paramount importance to me is what we will learn of the Supreme Court itself tomorrow. Will the justices vote along preconceived and predicted ideological lines or will they stand with the Constitution and the fundamental personal freedoms for which America was founded and for which she has become known?

You may recall an article Paul Johnson wrote for MittRomneyCentral March 30, 2012 in which he discusses the enormous importance of a President’s decision to nominate a justice to the Supreme Court. His article is excellent and most relevant today. Rarely do I quote from the left leaning New York Times, but today they published a decent article titled, “Future of an Aging Court Raises Stakes of Presidential Vote” that is quite good in briefly describing the importance of the role of the next President in shaping the future of our nation; it is worth the read.

If Governor Romney is elected in November and if he were to serve two, four-year terms, he could end up nominating more justices to the Supreme Court than any recent POTUS. It is my expectation that he will have that privilege many times in the next eight years.

Artwork by Michael Ramirez

Total number of days left until Mitt Romney is President Elect Romney: 132

The National Rifle Association Celebration of American Values Leadership Forum has been ongoing this week in St. Louis, Missouri. An important GOP interest group, the annual meeting attracts top conservatives.

Although gun control groups have complained that Obama has done little to support their cause, Romney took a page from the NRA leadership, which has been saying that the president is waiting for a second term to crack down on firearms. He warned that Obama would “remake” the Supreme Court in a second term, threatening constitutional freedoms.

“In a second term, he would be unrestrained by the demands of re-election,” Romney told a crowd estimated at 6,000 in the Edward Jones Dome.

Referring specifically to the right to bear arms, Romney said: “If we are going to safeguard our Second Amendment, it is time to elect a president who will defend the rights President Obama ignores or minimizes. I will.”

Governor Romney’s speech:

In his first term, we’ve seen the president try to browbeat the Supreme Court. In a second term, he would remake it. Our freedoms would be in the hands of an Obama Court, not just for four years, but for the next 40. That must not happen.

As President, I will uphold the rule of law – and put America back on the path toward the Founders’ vision. I don’t want to transform America; I want to return America to the principles that made this nation great.

Our Founders began this great American Experiment. They created a nation conceived in liberty and they entrusted us with the duty to preserve it and defend it.

Just about the time I think Obama is going to do the right thing, he he does exactly the opposite. What was the relevance of his saying anything about ObamaCare when he knew the Court was working through it? There was no relevance, except to attempt to influence the justices — and if that was his motive (I think it was), it was deplorable and politically, it was stupid. He is such a rookie. Somewhere I heard he was a constitutional law expert.

In previous observations, I stated that Santorum was smart. As he is now very near a state of humiliation, I am rethinking that assertion. That said, he is taking four days off for Easter. I think there is a 51% chance Santorum will announce he is quitting next week. The only reason I did not give it a higher probability is because for Santorum to do the right thing, he would have to swallow his pride and humble himself — both are highly unlikely until after Easter. The humility moment will likely occur when Karen grabs him by both ears and says, “Rick, you fought hard, but this is not about you!”

Today, Gingrichdeclared bankruptcy in his “think tank.” Need we use up more real estate on this page about Mr. Gingrich? What else is there to discuss?

****** A pretty good online resource for remaining primaries to bookmark is HERE. ******

“All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” ~ Edmund Burke

On my way home from work tonight I heard the following exchange between Hannity and Ann Coulter, with Ms. Coulter arguing in part what I state below: judicial activism is not a court finding a law unconstitutional, but finding new rights or failing to enforce existing constitutional rights. Often she’s a bit extreme to be taken completely at face value, but I think she’s right to point out the judicial activism that concerns the right is not what apparently concerns the left:

If you thought the open mic comment to new Russian President Medvedev was pretty bad, President Obama has created some competition for himself in the gaffe department. Or was it another window to his soul?

You may have heard that Monday President Obama appeared to warn the Supreme Court regarding its pending decision on Obamacare. His comments were as follows:

I’m confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress. And I’d just remind conservative commentators that for years what we’ve heard is, the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint — that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law. Well, this is a good example. And I’m pretty confident that this Court will recognize that and not take that step.

Yahoo called the remark a “challenge” to the Court. Others weren’t so kind. Among other problems with the President’s statement, you may recall that whether Obamacare was passed by a “strong majority” can be called into question. It was a purely party-line vote. But I digress.

I’m willing to assume President Obama, as a constitutional scholar, understands the concept of judicial review, and that courts overturning unconstitutional laws is not “unprecedented.” As a liberal, he may even be among the first to re-affirm that Marbury v. Madison is still good law. But the tone and chosen wording of the President’s comments caused the White House to have to defend itself from some of those “unkind” remarks yesterday. White House Press Secretary Jay Carney (the guy distributing the Obama Kool-Aid) tried to make the case the President was “clearly” referring only to commerce clause cases, and with respect to those only those of the past 80 years. Neither qualification, of course, was actually included in the President’s initial comments. When pushed as to whether the president was clarifying his remarks, Carney said “Only because a handful of people didn’t understand what he was referring to.”

Here’s a link to the video should you care to watch. Today he added that the President had been speaking in “short-hand.” I hope that flexibility is accorded both sides in campaign season. We’ll see.

The president’s statement caused Ruth Marcus of the Washington Post to write:

Obama’s assault on “an unelected group of people” stopped me cold. Because, as the former constitutional law professor certainly understands, it is the essence of our governmental system to vest in the court the ultimate power to decide the meaning of the constitution. Even if, as the president said, it means overturning “a duly constituted and passed law.”